how are they gonna win now? they cant get the players they need because they have a defensive tackle that accounts for 22 million against the cap. sure you might get to the playoffs but probably not getting to the superbowl or winning it with just suh. they need to be able to cover recievers because obviously the pass rush that suh puts up isnt good enough to make up for the suspect secondary. they need other wide recievers because calvin just cant do it all by himself. trading suh wouldnt be a setback or building for the future it would allow the team to pursue the players they need to get to be the winner you all look for now.

Extending Suh gets cap relief right now, trading him doesn't. They proved last year they can make space and Mayhew has said they can make space this year. A better secondary wont matter without the pass rush to help it and Fairley has yet to prove he can play hard for a full season. The little this defense does well now is entirely reliant on Suh and losing him will be a bigger step back than 3 mid level FA will push them forward next off season when they get the new cap space. IMO the best course of action for this team is squeeze everything they can from the cap space for the next 2 years and if Caldwell hasn't done anything by then you hit reset like the Raiders have and let Caldwell coach out the year with whats left. After that year is over you fire everyone and start fresh with loads of space and what ever assets you could get from blowing up the roster. In 2 years you could feasibly get rid of both Stafford and CJ to save $20M, if they can make it 3 years with creative cap management without touching Staff and CJ they could drop them both and open up more than 30M in space. Out of the three high paid guys only Suh and CJ have been great over multiple seasons. Suh plays a position where a player can continue to do well at an advanced age and is the younger less often banged up of the two players. It makes more sense to go long term with Suh than the other 2 players.

February 15th, 2014, 9:39 pm

vankman79

Div 1 - Starter

Joined: August 19th, 2010, 9:24 pmPosts: 584

Re: We need to trade Suh.

you seem to be sure that trading him would do nothing for the cap. im pretty sure if he signs a new deal and then he is traded im pretty sure the team who gets him will take that money and we should be out of it. I really dont know much about how all that works but there is always a way to get rid of the cap hit. teams that want to trade players on the last year of their deal always let the trade partner negotiate contracts before the trade. same here

the lions find a trade partner, the trade partner figures out his new contract, he signs that contract with detroit, and detroit trades away suh and his high cap hit.

The concept of trading Suh is insane to me. The way I think about it is this: good teams don't trade away All Pro talent. They just don't. In fact, I can't even think of an example where something like this has happened. There are plenty of examples of guys who have 1 good year, or are past their prime and either leave in free agency or are traded away to a team hoping they'll recapture their glory days (Hershall Walker to the Vikings, Heynsworth to Washington, Montana leaving the 49ers are the end of his career, etc), but I can't think of an example of a team trading away or letting one of their all pro level players, who is in the midst of or entering their prime, get away. Can anyone provide an example of that? Even one?

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

you seem to be sure that trading him would do nothing for the cap. im pretty sure if he signs a new deal and then he is traded im pretty sure the team who gets him will take that money and we should be out of it. I really dont know much about how all that works but there is always a way to get rid of the cap hit. teams that want to trade players on the last year of their deal always let the trade partner negotiate contracts before the trade. same here

the lions find a trade partner, the trade partner figures out his new contract, he signs that contract with detroit, and detroit trades away suh and his high cap hit.

The Lions have to absorb all signing bonus and other guaranteed money. The other team only inherits the base salary. So, he would have to be traded on his current deal, pending the negotiation of a new contract with the other team that would be signed after the trade was processed.

The concept of trading Suh is insane to me. The way I think about it is this: good teams don't trade away All Pro talent. They just don't. In fact, I can't even think of an example where something like this has happened. There are plenty of examples of guys who have 1 good year, or are past their prime and either leave in free agency or are traded away to a team hoping they'll recapture their glory days (Hershall Walker to the Vikings, Heynsworth to Washington, Montana leaving the 49ers are the end of his career, etc), but I can't think of an example of a team trading away or letting one of their all pro level players, who is in the midst of or entering their prime, get away. Can anyone provide an example of that? Even one?

Can you think of an example where 1 team has had to pay 3 players nearly $20 Million per year? Didn't think so.3 players take up nearly 45% of our cap.

February 16th, 2014, 3:04 pm

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: We need to trade Suh.

Well consequences are the result of poor decisions. Matt Millen was a poor decision, who made poor choices, and the Lions are left holding the bag on that. Having said that, getting rid of Suh will do more to hurt our defense and put us back in the laughing stock of the NFL. He's the new leader of the line, and he brings a lot of talent and disruption with him. I can not see another NFL team passing on him, if we were to offer him up, he's that good!

If he wasn't producing, and being the dominant force that he has been, I would consider your point of view; but he has continued to be a force and to play hard. Trading Suh will be another monumental mistake for this team, and will keep us at the lower end of mediocre for years to come. We seem to have a coach with a square head on his shoulders, who wants to win and has assembled a team around the vision of where he wants to go. He's kept key personnel from the old regime including gunner, washburn, and others, and he's brought in new blood too. With the right twists and tweaks we could be closer to playoffs now than we've ever been, but removing proven leaders and dominant players is a recipe for disaster.

Besides it isn't our money anyway, it's the Ford's, and even if we called for a fan boycott of the Lions games, there are TOO MANY knuckleheads that would go and keep the Ford's in profit with their 9 dollar house beer, and 20 dollar food plates.

_________________Acts 4:13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Rom. 12:1-2

February 16th, 2014, 3:14 pm

vankman79

Div 1 - Starter

Joined: August 19th, 2010, 9:24 pmPosts: 584

Re: We need to trade Suh.

if thats all your looking for is playoffs than im sure the lions can get there with suh, they will probably never have the talent to get to the superbowl, but hey, they made the playoffs baby. since thats all you look forward to. I prefer championships and i cant see it happening with three players costing almost 60 million against the cap.

fords money, what a way to look at it. the truth is that its oUR money. the truth is that its the money that puts oUR team on the field. its not fords money. the fans pay the salary, the fords just collect the profit

February 16th, 2014, 3:20 pm

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: We need to trade Suh.

Well Vankman, if that were true, then we fans would have more say in how the money is spent, but we don't. Even if we tried, we could not keep people from attending a home game and the Ford's would continue as they are. Stop buying Ford products, or stop making them, and stop attending a Home game, and buying Lions gear and so on. Since none of these things can happen in any real amount to hurt the Ford pocket book, it's not going to change.

Players like Suh, Cj, and others CAN get us to the Super Bowl, with the right vision and accountability. That last part seemed to be the most talked about in the press conferences, but least evidenced in the games. Stafford, Schwartz, and a number of others talked about "well we got to learn from this and move on." "We've got to do better and move on" "We've (insert your own line here) and move on." Whether it was the Tampa melt down that I personally watched with my family, from the nose bleeds, or each game thereafter, Detroit had NO heart or fight to them. Thanksgiving Day was their Super Bowl, they beat Green Bay and then went into the off season.

So all of the arm chair GM's here can share their years of GM knowledge and experience about what must be done, but in the end, it will be nothing more than sounding off on a public forum, and little more than venting. But hey, if you, or anyone else needs to vent, please do, because the way people are snapping under pressure and taking it out on co-workers or strangers, we need more venting. But in the end, it will still be a GAME, that we pay people WAY TOO MUCH MONEY TO PLAY, and it will still be taken WAY TOO SERIOUSLY. So have at it!

_________________Acts 4:13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Rom. 12:1-2

February 16th, 2014, 3:38 pm

vankman79

Div 1 - Starter

Joined: August 19th, 2010, 9:24 pmPosts: 584

Re: We need to trade Suh.

i disagree with the idea that suh, calvin and matt will get us to the superbowl (which i hope im wrong). but i really cant argue with the rest of what you said.

all i know is that nate is gone, delmas is gone, pettigrew likely gone, we dont have a cornerback worthy of starting on the team, and besides calvin we dont have a wr worthy of being on the team besides ross which is only because of his kick returning ability and that is what makes him worth keeping. you eliminate one of them big contracts on the team and then there is money to shore up those needs. in my opinion you can shore them areas up if you let suh go whether it be trading him or letting him walk away. i prefer to trade him and get something out of him.

good teams dont end up drafting top 5 every year and having 3 players at over 15 mil per season. its crippling

I should have been more specific. Top tier, all pro type players who aren't huge problems for their teams are almost never traded, and in the rare case when they are, it almost always works out better for the teams who receive them. The team who trades them almost always ends up worse off. Let's go one by one:

Marshall: Great player, and was traded twice due to behavioral stuff. The teams who traded him definitely got the worse end of the deals.Faulk: A truly great player when he was traded. Indy got absolutely hosed in this deal. Seymour: One of the rare deals where both teams ended up doing well.Lynch: Wasn't even the starting RB on his team when he was traded. He didn't break out until he got to Seattle, who got the far better end of that deal.Richardson: What? He's not top tier. He hasn't done anything. Wasn't any good in Cleveland, and is arguably worse in Indy. Shouldn't be on this list.Owens: A great, all pro player who was a problem everywhere he went. Teams that received him were better for a year or two, then couldn't wait to get rid of him. A weird case.Hadl: Um, who? I looked him up. Seems to be a stud player who had 1 good year after he was traded, then went downhill. Definitely not traded in his prime.Favre: Was nothing when Atlanta sent him to the Packers. He threw a total of 4 passes in his career prior to the trade. Then when the Packers let him go he was WAY past his prime. Bobby Layne: Really? You're going to use Bobby Layne as an example to justify the Lions trading away a star player. Yeah that worked out really well last time.Haynes: Great player. Wasn't traded or let go. It was a settlement that was effectively a trade, and it worked out much better for the raiders (the team who he went to)Dickerson: a truly elite player who changed teams in his prime. The Colts got a hall of fame player, and the Rams got Gaston Green, Aaron Cox, Fred Strickland, Cleveland Gary, Frank Stams, and Darryl Henley. Way better deal for the Colts.Richter: He was drafted before playing. Essentially a draft day trade. Not the same as what we're talking about here.Moss: Was not at his peak when he was traded. Was coming off two down years and was injured. Didn't play well in Oakland and didn't pick back up until he went to New England. New England definitely got the better of that deal.Bettis: Top tier player and both teams benefited. A rarity.Walker: Pretty much the worst trade in NFL history. He was way past his prime and the Vikings got hosed.Steve Young: Young had done nothing when he was traded, then rode the bench behind Montana for 3 years before he got his chance. He was never traded again at his peak.Elway: Huh? Only ever played for the Broncos. He was a draft trade, and the Broncos got the WAY better end of the deal.Belichik: he was a failed head coach who was supposed to take over for the jets when he went to the Pats. He definitely wasn't a top tier guy at that point.

So let's see, there's 4 or 5 examples of top tier guys who were traded or let go, and in all but one case the team who picked up the player got the better end of the deal. So tell me again why the Lions should want to get rid of their best defensive (and maybe best overall) player?

As for your comment about the money, that's in the past now, and what the Lions can do is restructure the deals to be more cap friendly. It's what they've been doing every offseason, and it's working. They'll have to continue to do it for now if they want to keep their talent.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Yeah, and who got the better end of that deal? Baltimore got a top tier WR for a few years. Arizona got Andre Roberts and O'Brien Schofield. I'd say Baltimore won big in that deal. Again, the team getting the top talent in their prime gets the better of the deal. Does anyone really think Detroit would buck the trend and be one of the only teams to end up better off by trading away one of its best players in the prime of his career? I certainly don't.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

February 16th, 2014, 6:42 pm

conversion02

RIP Killer

Joined: January 26th, 2005, 9:34 pmPosts: 10949Location: Sycamore, IL

Re: We need to trade Suh.

I was referring to the steal San Fran got. However, AZ got a 3rd and a 4th and gave up a 5th. Sure, not a good deal by any means, but with Fitz new deal, they had to dump boldin, who got around $9M per if I remember right. Then, when flacco got way overpaid, they had to dump boldin our cap reasons, and the fact he wasn't producing like a $10M/yr wideout. So, Hairball gave his brother a present for a 6th rounder. What a steal.